Search Results

The Renegade Wheelchair is a versatile, mechanical wheelchair intended for indoor and outdoor use.

The Renegade is designed to offer the user the option of conventional hand-to-wheel propulsion, or the use of pushbar levers which provide thrust by way of a gear and chain system. Each wheel has multiple gears and independent brakes, providing versatility and control. The wheelchair is fitted with accessory holders to provide a means to carry sports and recreational equipment.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Alpha One Renegade Wheelchair. It describes the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, this document is a traditional 510(k) submission for a mechanical wheelchair, not a medical imaging or AI-enabled device.

Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design, ground truth, expert involvement, and AI performance metrics is not applicable to this type of submission. Traditional 510(k)s for mechanical devices primarily focus on demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices in terms of material composition, technical characteristics, and intended use, often relying on engineering specifications, performance testing (e.g., durability, stability), and comparisons of features, rather than clinical study data with statistical measures like sensitivity, specificity, or reader performance.

Here's an attempt to address the applicable points based only on the provided text, while noting the limitations:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed performance results in the way one would expect for an AI/imaging device. The overall "acceptance criterion" for a 510(k) is demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

This information is not provided in the summary. For a mechanical wheelchair, clinical "test sets" in the context of diagnostic performance are not typically used. Testing would likely involve engineering and performance benchmarks, not patient data.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

This information is not provided and is not applicable for a traditional mechanical wheelchair 510(k). "Ground truth" in this context would relate to engineering specifications and performance standards, not diagnostic interpretations by medical experts.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

This information is not provided and is not applicable for a traditional mechanical wheelchair 510(k).

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

An MRMC study was not done. This type of study is relevant for AI-powered diagnostic devices, not for a mechanical wheelchair.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

This is not applicable. The device is a mechanical wheelchair, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

The concept of "ground truth" as typically understood in AI/imaging studies (e.g., pathology, clinical outcomes) is not applicable here. For a mechanical device, performance is evaluated against engineering standards and safety requirements. The "truth" is whether the device meets its design specifications and performs safely and effectively according to its intended use and comparison to the predicate.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided and is not applicable. There is no AI training set for a mechanical device.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

This information is not provided and is not applicable. There is no AI training set for a mechanical device.

In summary: The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a mechanical wheelchair. It demonstrates substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on design and intended use. The questions posed are primarily relevant to AI/imaging devices, and therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted from this particular submission.

Ask a specific question about this device